This was the data I was after. Thank you!

I didn't claim they were neither rightfully nor wrongfully sued. The OP was the one trying to make a distinction between rightly or wrongly sued, not me.

From the sentence you quoted "The study found that Covid survivors were nearly three and a half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital, and die, in the 140 days timeframe than other hospital outpatients." it is very clearly comparing them to the general hospital patient population of all ages and conditions. (By general population I meant the general population of those admited to the hospital).

The Guardian article starts with this sheer absurdity where they try to say that the death rate for COVID is the same as for Ebola (should I remind you that the ceiling for COVID mortality is 2.5% if we assume that every single person that got COVID was tested positive... so in reality is much, much lower than this): "A third of patients admitted to hospital in the UK with Covid-19 are dying, according to a major study whose authors said the observed death rates put the illness on a par with Ebola.".

So I admittedly didn't read pass that absolutely dumb and incendiary sub title the first time. Now I did, and sincerely I still can't find the original medical article... which I am getting more and more curious about.

That's was definitively not my point. Telling me that a person. that's on average 83 years old, is "three and a half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital and die, in the 140 days timeframe" than the general population, in absolutely no way addresses my point.

Care to elaborate on your definition of "rightfully sued" taking into consideration that the defendant won the case?

We are talking about people quite past the average life expectancy. Average COVID deaths in Sweden are 82 years old, in Spain, 84 years old. That a 3rd of them need to get back in the hospital in the next 5 months, is really something of notice, or is it something that is statistically expected for people this age and with certain conditions that got them to be specially affected by COVID in the first place? The article doesn't address any of these statistics.

I can't really understand how your comment is evaluated as "insightful". You started by claiming "I have honestly never seen a BLM activist proudly claim they are Marxists. Are you using Big Lie techniques... Just like Hitler would?". Then when proof was given that the co-founder of BLM herself declared to be a Marxist (in fact she claimed they were all trained Marxists), you came up with some grand notion of false equivalence with n.azis... although, nobody ever mentioned n.zis when answering you.

What is happening to Slashdot

I used to think like you, then I actually started reading about Marxism instead of just accepting the "people with good intentions" narrative and dared to look at the amount of human suffering that happened - every single time - these people got even a glimpse of power.

Marxism, not only started as un-apologetically anti human rights idology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_human_rights), but through time, all the time, and openly in the present, defend the discrimination, and elimination of certain people they seem as undesirables. There's nothing human, or righteous or moral in telling me that you want to see rich people deprived of their rights, as opposed to see black people deprived of their rights. These are both, exactly disgusting ideals.

Well, first of all I was answering to someone claiming "I have honestly never seen a BLM activist proudly claim they are Marxists.". That has been put soundly aside and some people are now trying to shift the discussion away from the fact... fair enough I guess.

Second, what do you think a "trained n.zi" is trained to do then? The issue here is not how dangerous are these people individually, but how dangerous is the ideology they are trying to propagate.

The Guardian, openly endorsed the Labour party in 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/co...

The problem is the same as the leader of any other social movement describing himself as a "trained n.zi". It's clearly a problem for me, maybe it isn't for you, that's your right.

And yes, The Guardian is generally and historically considered to be left wing but quite a lot of moderate parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This number considers that everyone that contracted the virus in the USA, did a test and tested positive for it.

Pretty sure that the last person in that Jew family that really new what N.zism was about, was at least their grandparent, probably their great-grandparent. When you live a sheltered life through all your existence, you don't know how to put things into perspective.

I'm not sure if that's a good principle or not. But I am ok with it as long as it is applied to rallies with people espousing Communist symbols as well